Message 00006 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 6/176 L4 [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] Request for comments

Hi Mathieu and all!

Here are my few cents.

3 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
Following is a list of issues that I wanted to raise to help kick off the
journal project. My aim is to be as open as possible and raise as many
potential issues from the start as possible so that we have an agreement if
problems arise.


Though I volunteered to be editor / maintainer I can't do it alone. The most
important is to gather together a collective of people who are committed to
this idea of a journal and want to help make it happen by volunteering to
participate in the peer reviewing process.

There probably also will be organizational work to do.


* Suggested title:
Critical Studies in Peer Production

I did hear no voice against this title so it seems to me like this is

* Suggested definitions / mission statement:

A mission statement is a very good idea. It is something everyone can
refer to and it should be a guiding light.

Typical mission statements are short - say 3-6 lines. I think that's
good. I'll give it a try:

  This semi-scientific journal is dedicated to study peer production.
  By peer production we understand economic activities which include,
  production, openness and {are primarily done by volunteers /
  external structural forces are absent / non-alienation} such as Free
  Software or Wikipedia. Following the principles of peer production
  ourselves we are interested in every field where peer production
  plays a role. For this we welcome contributions from classical
  science as well as from activists of all kinds to foster the deeper
  understanding of this phenomenon and the political implications it
  might have.

Well, a bit long but more or less:

* a definition of peer production

  This is probably the most crucial point at all.

* a bit of information about the internal organization

* the fields which are studied

* and the mission.

Also a 

* historical reference

  could be interesting - like "after 10 years of discussion in the
  Internet" or so.

May be the "semi-scientific" needs to be discussed. I thought of a
scientific journal with additional activism. What do others think?

<overall direction>
StefanMn seems to have fairly strict ideas about what is acceptable content
and what is not. I think we need a balance between "there is no party line /
we should respect individuality" and a strong, coherent editorial direction.
My preference would be to be inclusive, i.e. have dialogue with other
"fellow travellers" whenever possible.

It might seem that I'm quite strict for Oekonux - though for a reason.
I think part of the success of Oekonux comes from the fact that it is

Inclusiveness is fine though especially for a semi-scientific journal
like this one it must find a stop where stubbornness and stupidity
comes in. Contributions should also not reject peer production or
contradict it fundamentally. To find these limits is probably part of
the editorial process.

* Identity of journal:
Relationship to Oekonux? Who is doing this journal? People associated with
Oekonux? How do we phrase it?

In my opinion it is not an Oekonux journal but closely related to

Do we publish a list of peer reviewers / editorial committee members? This
would be useful in my view.

Would be part of openness of course.

* Periodicity:
I'd like to aim for two a year. Ideally we would always have a full issue's
content "in the bag". See how we go, I guess.

Well, that's probably a good question. Would we really want to have a
regular period? This creates high pressure and especially for an
online journal what would be the benefit?

* Suggested other content:
Reviews (books, journals)?
News analysis (i.e. what is the Pirate Party about, etc)?

This would be nice indeed.

* Other people:
Do we invite others to join in this list and in the journal process if we
think they would be interested? 

May be we can do it like it is typical in peer production: Based on a
growing or grown trust we invite people to an editorial board. This
mailing list can be open for subscriptions, however. It should be
archived on the web in any case - transparency is crucial.

* Proposed Oekonux Book:
Some journal content could feed into book project?

Could be possible.

* Journal Website:
Simple, text-based. Will have to simple be if done by me! 



* Peer-review [a] people:


Simply put, the journal cannot exist without people to assess submissions.
This is a serious commitment, but in my experience it can also be fun and
informative. Please indicate whether you can do this.


* Peer-review [b] criteria:
We need a list of criteria to help reviewers.
For example: is the article well-written? Is it original? Are there some
major ideas / authors that are not mentioned? Could it be improved? Could it
be cut?...

Good list for a start :-) .

What about original? In today's world and especially in a peer
production context I find it unacceptable that a contribution is
forbidden to be published before inclusion. So do we want to rule out
works which have been available before?

* Peer-review [c] publicity of peer review process:
Openly discussed on list? Or by private email to not stifle debate as people
may be reluctant to be honest and critical if this could result in offended

Well, I'm for openness again. However, your concern is certainly
valid. And I want to prevent a private parallel structure as well.
Difficult question...

I could also imagine that discussing a contribution for instance on
[ox-en] could add to the result.

* Peer-review [d] maintainer / editor's role:

I'm not sure whether the role of a maintainer is the same as the role
of an editor. In particular I think it is good if we have one
maintainer whose main obligation is to care about things going on and
a couple of editors who are responsible for the content tasks. Of
course these roles can be combined in one person. Or am I confusing an
editor with a peer reviewer? Is there a difference between a peer
reviewer and an editor? Which one?

What do others think?

- I'm always happy to learn something or be proved wrong when it comes to
ideas / matters of substance.

- I'm much less willing to compromise when it comes to style and expression;
I have been writing and editing for a while now and I do tend to trust my
judgment on this.

I appreciate that we have an expert here :-) (especially because I'm
not a native English speaker ;-) ).

So if I judge a text to be poorly written I would not be
comfortable with it being published as that would undermine the quality of
the journal. I also don't want to find myself in a situation where I have to
completely rewrite something, endlessly negotiate with authors, etc. Though
of course if a text is of very high substantive quality I would want to help
improve it. 

I think that's the way to go.

- One power that I claim for the maintainer / editor is the ability to set
deadlines, and act if they are not met: if people fail to meet deadlines,
they miss the boat. People don't turn up late for work (usually): they
should not compromise a project by undue delays. I will flag messages with

Fine with me.


That's all I can think of. Once again, if there is another issue that should
be discussed, please post.

I'd appreciate if the results of this discussion could be written down
somewhere so they can be referenced easily.



Thread: joxT00000 Message: 6/176 L4 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00006 [Homepage] [Navigation]