Re: Unclear how the journal works (was: Re: [jox-tech] Re: Scientific ratings)
- From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:28:17 +0100
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:20 pm
Subject: Unclear how the journal works (was: Re: [jox-tech] Re: Scientific ratings)
To: journal-tech oekonux.org
Yesterday Mathieu ONeil wrote:
All ideas are supposed to go through the list, or email the
editor. That seems clear to me.
I put it there a year ago. See my post from 21 Dec 2009 23:58:59 on
I dont remember not answering Graham, apologies if that is the case,
but I'm pretty sure I did.
So where is his submission then?
Well, I responded to him that we were experimenting with the process: three reviews of a submitted paper were done. I synthesised the opinions (revisions were suggested, I think).
I emailed the authors (that would be you and StefanMz) back in September and have not heard anything since then. I could not answer him as the process stopped. Do you intend to resubmit something?
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.
Just one question: Where did "the collective" decide to put
submissions to? Really a simple question I can't remember you ever
gave an answer to.
I don't know if that particular point has been decided after collective negotiation or if it just emerged through common sense: for example you posted your submission to the site as you have access. Other people without such access can use public access: email the editor or through the list.
Another precise question: Please describe the whole process of a paper
going through the stages including all actors and all facilities
-idea of paper proposed to list (it should perhaps be explained on the cspp site how to do this)
-list gives feedback
-paper formally submitted to editor
-editor posts paper to site, approaches reviewers
-reviewers hand in reports
-editor provides this feedback to author
-author (accepts or rejects feedback and) re-submits
-reviewers rate re-submission
-author decides whether he/she is happy to publish with this rating
-article is published/not published
-if published: audience can comment; author can respond in comments
= we need a way to present the rating system
= we also have to decide if we publish only as a webpage and/or as pdf..