Message 00596 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: joxT00565 Message: 27/38 L18 | [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] |
I recognize this. There are lots of reasons folks would prefer not to have their drafts visible. But it's a matter of weighing the outcomes. Yes, it could discourage some Ph.D. students, though it certainly wouldn't have discouraged me when I was a student, and many of my Ph.D. students would have preferred it. On the other hand it opens up the process of review for those students to see in a way that is otherwise very difficult to understand. I was lucky in that one of the members of faculty shared (against the expectations of the journal and the author, I'll add) copies of pre-review articles that we could practice reviewing, and shared his own reviews of those papers. It's more than just learning the formal queues of reviewing--if open source software development is any indication, it's also a great way to learn how things work and how they are done. When my first reviews came for a manuscript I literally cried. Had I known that successful faculty regularly received harsh criticism--and more, that detailed criticism was a gift--I would have been thankful. As it was, I found the entire process (like much of academia) to be secretive, closed, and exclusive. My concern with making it optional is that most people won't. The default is to do what you are familiar and comfortable with. I'll admit that despite my push for making this the requirement, I myself would--if given the option--be unlikely to open my draft up. I'd still publish it on my site or something, probably, but why would I take a risk when others will not. Yes, we could encourage a culture of draft sharing, and my thanks to the first authors for being willing to do so, but although I would love to be wrong, without it being mandated, or at least very strongly encouraged, I don't expect many people will choose the road that leads to more scrutiny and criticism. Be bold, be open, and share. Scholarly work is best done in open conversation, so let's help that happen... Best, Alex On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k gmail.com> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Alex The problem is making it compulsory and not asking authors first if they would opt for this. It is different to say 'this is our preferred policy to authors, and can we please publish your draft' and different to say 'this draft is getting published otherwise we are not considering your work to send to review or to be published'. I wanted to clarify the point, that following your logic on this means that we refuse to consider and exclude people who might not want to do this, PhD students, all sorts who are new to this or people with psychological differences who are uncomfortable with compulsory processes for any reason. Cheers Athina On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Alex Halavais <alex halavais.net> wrote:It would help me to understand the reasons, beyond vanity, that someone would not want their draft published, as well as the reasons that the journal would not want to mandate publications of drafts, if reasons for the latter are different. If, for example, there is a case where publishing the draft would inadvertently reveal private information about the author or the subjects of a study, then I can understand either redacting or not publishing a draft. Publishing as an option isn't really any different than most journals, which permit you to do pre-publication archiving, and a smaller number that permit post-publication archiving. If part of the mission of the journal is to encourage peer-processes that are open and transparent, the publication of drafts seems pretty inherent to that process. Barring that, I would second Toni's suggestion of mandating either drafts or a short explanation of why the author is opting out of an open draft. Would requiring draft publication reduce the number of submissions? Yes, I suspect it would--at least initially. Would requiring draft publication increase the number of readers and the ways in which the journal was used, I feel certain it would. Best, Alex On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au> wrote:[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi all I agree - making draft publication mandatory is too much, better tostrongly encourage it. I will post the drafts for the first issue in the way discussed before and include a header along the lines - "not for quotation, for background only".cheers, Mathieu ----- Original Message ----- From: Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k gmail.com> Date: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [jox] Debrief and clarification process To: journal oekonux.org[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi All, On the question of encouraging the publication of drafts of submissions or making such publication mandatory with possible exceptions, I would go with encouraging not making it mandatory. The authors can declare this when they submit in the first instance whether they want it published or not. Cheers Athina On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Simon Lindgren <simon.lindgren soc.umu.se>wrote:OK, well I think this could be resolved by a clearhierarchisation ofavailable data for each research paper:- download article - download signals - download background information (original draft submissionand reviewersreports) this seems like a very good solution simon ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal-- <http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/> Dr Athina Karatzogianni<http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx>Lecturer in Media, Culture and SocietyThe 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 E: a.karatzogianni hull.ac.uk Check out Athina's work<http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/> https://sites.google.com/site/athinak/ [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-- // // This email is // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net // ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal-- <http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/> Dr Athina Karatzogianni<http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx> 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 E: a.karatzogianni hull.ac.uk Check out Athina's work<http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/> https://sites.google.com/site/athinak/ [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
-- // // This email is // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net // ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
Thread: joxT00565 Message: 27/38 L18 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
---|---|---|---|
Message 00596 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |