Re: Scientific ratings (was: Re: [jox-tech] CSS issues)
- From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:14:41 +0100
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
The below text overlaps in some respect with the submission and review process which we spent many months debating and which is now more or less decided as expressed on the relevant site page (for peer reviewed articles). In other respects the below text departs quite drastically from this process, for example I did not see any reference to the use of the email list which is quite central for vetting of proposals and feedback, cf. Prug's paper. For non-peer reviewed publications there still needs to be a dialogue with editors before content is published, though I guess this could be covered by your proposal process (i.e. use the site to debate suggestions). This may be a bit clunky but possible, i.e. in my experience people like to work on text documents which allow successive waves of comments. An added problem in that case is: would we need to give access to the site to people we may not know that well, first-time authors...?
----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:46 pm
Subject: Scientific ratings (was: Re: [jox-tech] CSS issues)
To: journal-tech oekonux.org
6 days ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
We have not discussed this at all yet; normally all research papers
should be rated according to our categories (see
We need to figure out a way to make this appear somehow?...
But before that we need to answer the question on how a submission
gets to the journal at all.
I made the start of a suggestion for a solution at
May be you can comment on that.
Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University