Message 00016 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00005 Message: 2/2 L1 [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

Hello friends,

Just a few comments on the RFC posted by Mathieu. 

I like the journal name: 'Critical Studies in Peer Production' and the mission statement makes great sense. And two issues per year is something in my opinion we could aim for.  

As regards the *identity* of the journal: in conversations i had with others in the past I always felt comfortable using the expression 'by/with individuals in and around Oekonux (Project)'. Anyway no matter how we phrase it, I think the connection to Oekonux should be visible: perhaps by mentioning something along the lines that the texts published in the journal spring from and elaborate on discussions held within oekonux. 

About the *list of peer reviewers/editorial committee*: I'm not sure if this is necessary. I am not against it, but perhaps first names followed by the first letter of one's surname (for example, raoul v., george d., etc.) would also suffice...

I also liked the non-exhaustive list of suggested the spirit of which I'd also add a couple that come to mind such as:
-the political economy of peer production
-critical theory & peer production
-forms and functions of peer production
-peer production & exchange

About inviting *other people* to join in the list and in the journal process if we think they would be interested: I suppose this ultimately hinges on Mathieu who as the maintainer of this project (lead editor of the journal) is in a position to assess the value of recruiting others. Anyhow, I reckon we should be careful not to end up with a list/editorial group of a hundred people who, having hardly anything in common, only aggravate the organisational costs of cooperation, thus encumbering the progress of the project. Also, we should take account of the effect of such a recruitment on theoretical coherence.

About *peer review [b] criteria*: My take is that we publish texts with what - in the absence of a better name - i'd call a 'high propaganda effectiveness factor', meaning that the texts, through their analysis, should be opening up new perspectives. To the extent that our goal is social change, i think it is fundamental to include not only texts that are well written/researched/substantiated but also passionate or polemical. I think that online peer-reviewed journals such as First Monday or Multitudes[1] serve as an example of how this can be done. 

As for the *[c] publicity of the peer review process*: I'd prefer everything to be openly discussed on the list (meaning the journal list). 

Best regards,




Thread: joxT00005 Message: 2/2 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00016 [Homepage] [Navigation]