Message 00033 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 16/176 L10 [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]

[jox] Re: Topic style and/or issue style



Hi Mathieu and all,

On 2009-07-18 14:51, Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
I don't really understand what is meant by "a discussion by
articles"?

This simply means, that we have position A explained in one article, 
which was carefully reviewed and released, and position B critizing, 
rejecting or whatever position A in another article, which too was 
carefully reviewed and released.

First, what would be gained by an open review process (which Michel
seems to be pushing for but you declare to not work so well with
texts) in relation to a traditional peer review model? This is a
genuine question. The good thing about a traditional review process
is that it is a focused exercise: the reviewers know they have to
produce a review by a certain date; otherwise they get hassled by
somebody. In an open review process I can't imagine the editor /
maintainer / whoever having any grounds to "pressure" anyone to
"improve" or "critique" a contribution. And, if no-one is interested,
it just won't happen... and things could drag on forever.

Setting deadlines do not depend on the typ of publication we'll choose 
(either issue-oriented, or topic/process-oriented, or a combination). 
IMHO.

I'm all for
experimenting with new forms but I also want to make the project as
good as possible. So there needs to be a rationale. I'm also thinking
of how to present the project to possible other scientific committee
members: how to define any other process of dealing with submissions
other than peer review? Perhaps the fact that we will be discussing
(as much as possible) reviews and any other issue on this list is in
and of itself quite an innovation and a step towards peer production
of research?

Not in the sense, that we will try to merge position A and B into one 
article. If we feel, that we move into controverse debates about the 
position presented in an article, this may be a motive to ask someone 
for another article explaining, why position A is not so good etc. Or we 
may invite someone, to discuss A and B from a perspective C etc.

The purpose of the review should be, to make the positions presented in 
articles A and B (or C) as clear as possible (including meeting formal 
conditions regarding language etc.).

As far as I understand, this is a quite traditional review approach, 
isn't it?

My second point is the relationship beween Oekonux and the journal.
Obviously both these projects are interested in the same things
(researching and extending peer production) and equally obviously
Oekonux is in a sense the "patron" or "publisher" of the journal as
it will be hosting the journal website. But, I think we should be
careful about making them too integrated in terms of content

I am not sure, if I understand what you are meaning by "too integrated". 
We have to distinguish between the technical side and the presentation 
side. From the technical perspective, the journal should be integral 
part of the content management system we use for ox in general -- due to 
two reasons: reducing efforts and cross-using of content. The important 
point is the first one, the second point is not specific, because via 
technical interfaces (API, or at least RSS), journal content could be 
used elsewhere (and should be: remember my demand to be crawlable by OAI 
servers).

From my viewpoint the journal should be presented as a journal. Like the 
italian example you posted recently.

- or rather I don't agree with how you formulate the direction of this
integration. What I'm trying to say is that what in my view would be
the best is a space where people in the Oekonux network can
communicate and exchange with other people including academic
researchers in an equal way.

Yes.

If however there is a perception that the journal and [ox] are one
and the same (so that for example anything that is published on an
[ox] website can automatically translate to the journal) I fear that
this may harm the scientific credibility of the journal, by giving
the impression that it is an extension of the [ox] project rather
than a scientific or strictly merit-based endeavour - and this in
turn would harm our chances of attracting contributions from academic
researchers. I wouldn't want us to have a boring journal with only
academic stuff but neither would I want us to scare away potentially
useful contributions from academics.

I feel, that "scientific credibility" could be harmed by either bad 
articles or non-scientific/acitivist articles. This first may be avoiding, 
the second not, because we should be open for activist-oriented 
experiences (say reflections of a given project etc.). So there might be 
an either-or decision. What do others think?

So in brief what I would say is that the peer-reviewed "pearls" in
the journal could happily be featured on the [ox] website, rather
than the other way around.

Of course. Could there be a scenario, where the journal wants to feature 
mailing list debates? I can't imagine. If there is some interesting stuff 
happen on the project side, then we need an article:-)

Ciao,
Stefan

-- 
Start here: www.meretz.de
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal



Thread: joxT00000 Message: 16/176 L10 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00033 [Homepage] [Navigation]