Message 00545 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00529 Message: 9/12 L7 [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]

Re: [jox] Identity of reviewers

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

This reminds me of the Wikipedia trope of being able to "look under the hood" of knowledge production so that as Clay Shirky would say knowledge does not arrive fully formed by mysterious magic (like in alchemy) but can withstand the withering scrutiny of peers (as in chemistry, which had the same actors and elements as alchemy but was open to external review).

In the context of CSPP, the problem is consistency. On Wikipedia all article histories and debates are archived by default.

In our case if authors and reviewers can opt in and out of publishing first drafts and reviews, paper 1 may have no first draft and review A and C but not B, while paper 2 will have a first draft and review C only. My question is : (a) how useful is this scientifically and (b) won't this look kind of messy and reflect poorly on the journal? 

To be clear, I'm not against the idea - in fact we started with the assumption that reviews would be published, which may indeed improve review quality and it does make sense to publish a first draft as well - just concerned about the patchiness of what we end up with...?

cheers,

Mathieu

ps. I'm also not clear whether we should let authors decide whether reviews should be published or not - maybe that should be a condition of article publication - that reviewers will have the option of publishing their review?



From: Gabriella Coleman <biella nyu.edu>


Ditto.

Biella

On 06/05/2011 09:39 PM, Athina Karatzogianni wrote:

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
If the reviewers have the option to remain anonymous, and 

their comments not

to be widely disseminated and the authors under review have 

the option to

not have the reviews widely published and the first version of 

their paper

not published, then I would agree with Toni's scheme of 

things. In which

case, authors and reviewers should be clearly informed from 

the outset what

the overall procedure is and what their options are (to remain 

or not

anonymous, to have or not to have their comments published, 

and whether the

original version is published or not etc).
Thanks
Athina

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Toni Prug 

<tony irational.org> wrote:



will it be mandatory to publish the first draft of essay

contributions?



i don't think it should be. quite a few authors are a likely 

to feel

anxious about it, especially at the time where such culture 

does not exist

in the social sciences and humanities. however, we can 

encourage it and

leave it to authors to decide. If peer reviews are published 

and the authors

reference them in the final published version, the points of 

contributions>> will be known. The actual magnitude, qualitative 
nature of contributions

made by the reviews can only fully be exposed by publishing 

the first

version. Alternatively, we can encourage authors to note in 

the footnotes a

bit more detail on how reviewers' comments influenced each 

major change

applied to the final published version.

______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal













[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
Thread: joxT00529 Message: 9/12 L7 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00545 [Homepage] [Navigation]