Message 00066 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: jox-techT00001 Message: 54/71 L16 [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-tech] Re: Scientific ratings

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan

All ideas are supposed to go through the list, or email the editor. That seems clear to me. I dont remember not answering Graham, apologies if that is the case, but I'm pretty sure I did. In other cases it would be more constructive to outline your precise questions rather than asking me to compare the long text you wrote to what has been decided collectively. 



----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Monday, December 13, 2010 7:53 pm
Subject: [jox-tech] Re: Scientific ratings
To: journal-tech

Hi Mathieu!

2 weeks (17 days) ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
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).

Ok, then it seems like you understood it. Fine with me. I don't 
and I
see a lot of detail questions open.

For instance a while ago Graham asked where to submit a new 
paper. You
didn't care to answer and frankly I think you actually don't 
*have* an
answer. But that really doesn't matter any longer.

You understood it, you have all the answers and you have no 
problem if
others don't understand and can't work with the journal. But you are
responsible and that's fine with me. I tried to be useful but
obviously I'm not able to be helpful. Fine with me. Go ahead.



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]

[2 text/html]

Thread: jox-techT00001 Message: 54/71 L16 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00066 [Homepage] [Navigation]