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

• From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>
• Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:15:38 +0700

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]

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?

We can solve this by having different sections, for example, a subsection
'reports from the field' would have testimonies and case studies, the
context making it clear that such articles are of a different, but entirely
legimate, nature,

Michel


[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal

• References:
  • Re: [jox] Request for comments
    • From: Mathieu O'Neil
  • Topic style and/or issue style (was: Re: [jox] Request for comments)
    • From: Stefan Merten
  • Re: Topic style and/or issue style (was: Re: [jox] Request for comments)
    • From: Mathieu O'Neil
  • [jox] Re: Topic style and/or issue style
    • From: Stefan Meretz

• Next in thread: Re: Topic style and/or issue style (was: Re: [jox] Request for comments)
• Previous in thread: Re: [jox] Re: Topic style and/or issue style
• First in thread: [jox] Title of the journal (was: Re: Welcome to the journal maintainer :-))
• Last in thread: Openness and its limits (was: Re: [jox] Mission statement)
• Next thread: Re: [jox] Request for comments
• Next by Date: Re: Topic style and/or issue style (was: Re: [jox] Request for comments)
• Prev by Date: Re: [jox] Re: Topic style and/or issue style