Message 00057 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 28/176 L15 [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] Draft CFP

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

As further food for thought, following is a CFP I just received from another journal... I like how the CFP is blended in with the mission statement and also the clear definition of the different types of submissions sought.


Call for Submissions
The Journal of Information Technology & Politics (JITP) seeks high-quality manuscripts on the challenges and opportunities presented by information technology in politics and government.  The primary objectives of the journal are to promote a better understanding of how evolving information technologies interact with political and governmental processes and outcomes at many levels, to encourage the development of governmental and political processes that employ IT in novel and interesting ways, and to foster the development of new information technology tools and theories that can capture, analyze, and report on these developments. (home page) (archives)

Submission Guidelines
Manuscripts should have significant theoretical and empirical roots, preferably in both political science and IT, but should at least contain significant content in both areas.  We are particularly interested in manuscripts in three areas: how information technology (IT) influences politics and government; how politics and government influence the development and use of IT; and how IT can be, or is being, used to advance research and teaching about politics and government, particularly in political science.

JITP welcomes and strongly encourages submissions based on interdisciplinary approaches including (but not limited to) information and computer sciences, law, geography, communications, economics, and sociology. We anticipate publishing articles on e-government, as well as applications of information technology in campaigns, elections, and public sector management. Other articles will examine the political economy of IT and governance of the Internet. We also anticipate publishing articles on forms of citizen interaction with government, from web logs ("blogs") at the "net-roots" to hyperlinked transnational social movements.  Finally, we are interested how technology developments are advancing political science research and instruction.

Submission Types
JITP accepts a variety of manuscripts. Please review the descriptions below and identify the submission type best suited to your intended submission.

Research Paper
Research papers are theoretically driven, focusing on an intersection of politics and IT and reporting substantial findings.

Policy Viewpoints
Policy Viewpoints explore competing perspectives in an ITP policy debate that are informed by academic research.

Teaching Innovation
Teaching Innovation articles explore creative uses of information technology tools to improve student learning in political science and other related fields.  Tutorials and papers that evaluate the effectiveness of technology tools improving learning both are welcome.

Workbench Note
Workbench Notes present a brief introduction and evaluation of one or more novel ITP tools developed to gain analytical leverage over political processes, or to advance political science instruction.

Review Essay
An original theoretically guided essay linking three or more related recent books to an important ITP subject area.

Book Reviews
A review of a book, or other book-length document, such as a government or foundation report.

JITP uses a fully electronic Manuscript and Review System (MARS) and review process that regularly produces decisions in as few as 60-75 days of the original submission. You can submit manuscripts online or simply join the reviewer community at:

If you have questions or comments, please let me know.

----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004>
Date: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:05 am
Subject: Re: [jox] Draft CFP
To: journal

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
ok then, here is my affiliation Dhurakij_Pundit_University 

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Mathieu O'Neil 
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Well, if people feel a wiki is necessary at this stage, why 
not, but at the
same time this list has been working OK until now?... You can 
email me the
information and I can compile it if you like.

----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004>
Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009 7:28 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Draft CFP
To: journal

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Thanks for all that initial work and the CFP .

perhaps it should be a wiki page now, so that we can add/correct
personaland other data that you require?


On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mathieu O'Neil
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

First, thanks to everyone who contributed so far to the
journal project,
you know who you are! Then, a belated happy 10th birthday to
the [ox]
project and its maintainer! I am happy to be actively
involved. For personal
reasons I will not be able to start "full-time editing" until
September /
October. In any case it is now the northern summer and I get
the impression
that not everyone is around. Plus, this fits in with stage we
are at which
is still to get the basics organised.

Specifically, we need to establish a webpage listing the
journal mission
statement, topics of interest, contributions sought and
submission criteria,
editor/scientific committee, maybe publisher. Ultimately this
will be used
to issue a first general call for papers (CFP). BTW, StefanMz
and StefanMn,
I would much prefer it if the address was http:cspp.ox.etc
rather than
http:csipp.ox.etc… "sipp" does not sound great to me and it
make me think of
sipping a cup.:-(

OK, enough whinging! The journal generic call for papers (CFP)
or front
page should ideally comprise the following elements (inspired
by another CFP
I just got):

1 <journal title / mission statement>
2 <topic and type of submissions sought>
3 <selection criteria>
4 <scientific committee: members and affiliation>
5 <publisher>

I address sticking points I identified for each of these in
turn and then
suggest a draft frontpage / CFP.


1 <journal title / mission statement>

I added "multidisciplinary" – not wedded to it but thought it
might be

I took out "self-organized" in part because of what 
StefanMn said
("capitalist firms are self-organized also") though I think
what was
intended here is that these projects are less hierarchical
than traditional
corporations or bureaus, but also because it was redundant
with the
self-selection of tasks mentioned later in the selection:
brevity is best!
I also added "contradictions" of peer productions to flag 
that peer
production is not without its problems (see point below).

2 <topic and type of submissions sought>

This is important as it shows what we are interested in
specifically. I
incorporated George's suggestions and some of my own for 
this list.

<The following is a side-issue regarding a particular
subtopic - please
skip ahead if you want to focus on the CFP itself>

Regarding the issue of whether we should discuss the
possibility of FLOSS /
peer production being coopted within capitalism… Defined as
"junk"… A
perspective that I found interesting is in the book "The New
Spirit of
Capitalism" by French sociologists Boltanski and Chiappello.
In a nutshell
their argument is that capitalism needs to _justify_ its
essentially amoral
purpose (which they define as "the peaceful unlimited
accumulation of
capital" – whatever: insert any definition you would prefer),
so that it can
motivate its managers.
[See]> > >
In 1968 in France there was a powerful challenge to capital
which took two
forms: a social critique of exploitation ("life under
capitalism is unequal"
as expressed by trade unions) and an artistic critique of
inauthenticity> ("life under capitalism is boring and repressed"
as expressed by New Left
avant-garde groups like the Situationnists). What has happened
according to
B&C since then is that capitalism has integrated the artistic
critique to
disarm the social critique: work (for some people) in the
informational> economy is less rigidly organised, workers have
more autonomy, personal
creativity is valued, there is a blurring between the personal
and the
professional (work as a creative vocation)… and meanwhile work
(for others)
has become less stable, less remunerative, more explotative.

A powerful idea they have is that capitalism needs 
critique to
survive and
reinvent itself: in informational capitalism successful 
individuals> > > establish connections with interesting others 
and move from
project to
project thanks to their agreeable personality, they have a
degree of
autonomy, similarly computer professionals work for Google in
unconventional> ways etc. In my view if the journal is going to
be "critical" it would be
useful for it to also be self-critical and self-reflexive. So
acknowledging> the role that free software and free labour can
play in capitalism is
important, at a simple level like I said before: "build Debian
/ Wikipedia
for free; buy a new computer"); but also in terms of
understanding how
injustice is now framed not in terms of exploitation but of
exclusion (from
networks, from power, from employment).

I'm not for a second saying that peer production does not 
have very
positive qualities (germ form for future society…). But I
think that
cooptation exists and should not be ignored. In fact
clarifying and
overcoming the tension between the cooptation of critique 
and peer
production's emancipatory potential is for me an important
task of the

[end side-topic]

<length of articles>
I suggested some lengths which seemed pretty standard?

<citation style>
APA, Harvard, Chicago??...

3 <selection criteria>

Most people (who expressed an opinion) seem to prefer an open
system. I'm
not against it but not having blind reviewing in favour of
open discussion
may turn some academics off ( StefanMn: remember how the
academic organiser
of the Manchester conference decided against pursuing with
[ox] for this
very reason?)

What I would suggest is that at this stage we just say "all
articles are
peer reviewed" and discuss further the way this would work
once we have more
people on board – for example we could have blind peer 
review for
new/unpublished submissions which are then discussed on the
list? StefanMn
may be right that openness will have a moderating effect.

4 <scientific committee: members and affiliation>

It's important to have a decent number – so far we have 7
people which is
too low in my view – so we need to build up the scientific
committee with
like-minded and credible people. What I am planning to do once
the text
below has been properly discussed and amended is to send 
it to
a few
academic researchers I think may be interested in joining in.

Regarding non-academics, if anyone has any ideas of people who
might be
suitable (have practical experience of peer production and can
write well)
that could be discussed as well. Maybe send me a private email?


George N Dafermos wrote:
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.

StefanMn said: "Valid points. May be we should set some
deadline then after
people are only invited by the existing group?"

I don't think we will have a hundred people… I'm all for
getting people who
are good and who we get on with etc. We will see how we go
over the next few
months with recruitment and then indeed once we have a
critical mass /
minimum number, we will stop this phase and from then on the
group could
suggest new people. This will need to be reviewed in the
northen fall.

<Next is the issue of affiliation or identification.>

University people are a priori unproblematic, they are
identified by their

The question is, how do we present non-university based
people? Do we put
the same term(s) for all of them – activist, practitioner 
– or
the name of
their specific projects?

For example, Michel is across both areas but is probably
better-known for
P2PF so it seems natural to put him as P2PF?

For StefanMn it would make sense to put [ox] but then 
below it
might say
[ox] is the publisher – does that make him the publisher? Does
this create a
confusion between distinct areas?

5 <publisher>
… Or do we not have a publisher?
However if CSPP is hosted by [ox] it makes sense to say what
[ox] is IMHO.

Anyway, here is the proposed CFP…


Critical Studies in Peer Production is dedicated to the
multidisciplinary> exploration of peer production, 
understood as
a mode of commons-based
production in which participation is voluntary and predicated
on the
self-selection of tasks. Notable examples are the
collaborative development
of Free Software projects and the Wikipedia online
encyclopedia. Through the
analysis of the forms and operations of peer producing
communities in
contemporary capitalist society, the journal aims to open 
up new
perspectives on the implications of peer production for social
change.> Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

-history of peer production
-peer production and expertise
-political economy of peer production
-critical theory and peer production
-forms and functions of peer production
-peer production and exchange
-peer production and social movements
-peer production as ideology in capitalism
-governance in peer projects
-peer production of hardware

Critical Studies in Peer Production is seeking contributions
from people
active in peer production around the world, whether as
researchers or
practitioners. In addition to research articles, the journal
encourages the
submission of:

-reflections and critical essays on peer production
-interviews with peer production practitioners
-reviews of peer projects and products

Articles should be 6000 words, critical essays and interviews
between> 1[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] words, and reviews 500-1000 words. The editor
is happy to discuss
other possibilities with potential contributors. All
contributions will be
peer reviewed. The journal follows the [insert citation style]
Mathieu O'Neil, University…

Scientific Committee:
Michel B, P2P / University?
George D, University…
Athina K, University…
StefanMn, ox?
StefanMz, ox?
Christian S, ?
Graham S, ?

CSPP is published by Oekonux. Oekonux is a non-profit
organization devoted
to the theoretical and practical advancement of the "Linux
economy", or peer
production. [It was founded by Stefan Merten in 1999 and is
based in

----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:25 am
Subject: [jox] Re: Topic style and/or issue style
To: journal
Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten>

Hi Mathieu and all!

I agree with what StefanMz replied. But to make this very
clear I'll
repeat this myself.

5 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
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.

Yes. Though I admit that I would make me proud if the
journal is
hosted on an Oekonux domain I could also imagine that it has
its own
domain. In other words: The main point are technical
reasons. However,
they can be changed if needed.

But, I think we should be
careful about making them too integrated in terms of
content - 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 don't think I ever even remotely suggested something like
this. If
something interesting on [ox] happens *and* someone 
comes up with
creating an article from it *then* it *could* be a candidate
for the
journal - no different from other candidates. I don't 
see any
automatism and would even think this would be
counterproductive for

[ox] is a discussion platform and on the mailing lists
anything can
happen. This is fine. The journal needs far stronger quality
gates.> >
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.





[2 text/html]

Working at - -

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:  - -

Monitor updates at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,

[2 text/html]

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]

Working at - -

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:  - -

Monitor updates at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,

[2 text/html]

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: 28/176 L15 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00057 [Homepage] [Navigation]