Message 00034 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 17/176 L11 [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] Re: Topic style and/or issue style

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan and all

OK, I think we are on the same page. The collective editing of an article also does not really strike me as a better idea than a well-thought piece which can then be contradicted by another POV if necessary. Regarding the technical integration, no problem for me there either.

Regarding content, you make a very useful distinction at the end of your message below between academic / research content and activist / opinion content.

In my view we can have both if we clearly delineate the difference: 
-a "research section" could feature articles that have been (blind / collectively peer) reviewed; 
-an "activist (or opinion or whatever) section" could feature opinions, testimonies, interviews, etc which would not be subjected to the same rigorous evaluation. 

The question that remains is the evaluation process for the research section: traditional blind peer review; or collective discussion on the list; or some combination of both? This needs to be sorted out before approaching potential additional scientific committee members - or at least we need a working proposition. Maybe two blind reviews which are then circulated to the list? Though then you could have authors seeing what people are saying about them - it might not be a problem, could in fact encourage people to be super-competent... but it will certainly strike some researchers as a pretty radical innovation, and not all would be prepared to do it. I'm open to it, but also would appreciate some feedback from list members. It would be great to have an opinion from someone who has experience with academic publishing...?


----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Meretz <stefan>
Date: Saturday, July 18, 2009 11:57 pm
Subject: [jox] Re: Topic style and/or issue style
To: journal

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

This simply means, that we have position A explained in one 
which was carefully reviewed and released, and position B 
rejecting or whatever position A in another article, which too 
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 
(either issue-oriented, or topic/process-oriented, or a 

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 
position presented in an article, this may be a motive to ask 
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 
conditions regarding language etc.).

As far as I understand, this is a quite traditional review 
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 
We have to distinguish between the technical side and the 
side. From the technical perspective, the journal should be 
part of the content management system we use for ox in general --
due to 
two reasons: reducing efforts and cross-using of content. The 
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 

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.


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 
articles or non-scientific/acitivist articles. This first may be 
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 
mailing list debates? I can't imagine. If there is some 
interesting stuff 
happen on the project side, then we need an article:-)


Start here:

Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University

E-mail: mathieu.oneil
Tel.: (61 02) 61 25 38 00
Mail: Coombs Building, 9
Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 17/176 L11 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00034 [Homepage] [Navigation]