Message 00584 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: joxT00565 Message: 19/38 L13 | [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] |
forgot to mention in the original response that the same logic of signals applies to this: we don't decide on behalf of readers, we give signals instead and they decide i.e. we expose background info and leave to readers to decide.
perhaps we should add an extra signal, "significant changes after the reviews", or something like that (could be named better), to help readers decided whether it's worth reading the background info bundle.
OK, well I think this could be resolved by a clear hierarchisation of available data for each research paper: - download article - download signals - download background information (original draft submission and reviewers reports) Would that be OK?
______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
Thread: joxT00565 Message: 19/38 L13 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
---|---|---|---|
Message 00584 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |