Message 00084 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 66/176 L17 [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: Peer Review [Was: RE: Review process

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi All,

Just my thoughts on the review process. I also agree it is not a good idea
to get people's rehashed papers and republish them. I know people would
rather often get accepted in an established academic closed journal for
reasons of career development etc.

However, I also know that when people are developing ideas and research they
want to get feedback on their research when they start out on it and thats
one thing that we could do. Provide a platfrom for people to publish initial
ideas on papers they are working on, and finished ideas the need feedback
on. So they can puclish initial working papers with us, before they submit
more complete material elsewhere 2-3 years down the line. I think this means
we will be getting cutting eldge research as it is being formulated which
can be very interesting, monitoring in a way the developments in the field
very closely and publishing them. An online journal can do this very easily
-continnously publishing super current research- without having the
constraints of waiting for 2 years to publish others accepted and waiting,
and then there is no printing process to worry about.

On the blind reviewing, the reason it is good, is that when someone reviews
a paper they dont know who has written it and it is fairer process.
Reviewers can discuss openly papers they review (a small number of specific
reviewers for each paper submitted) but they would not know who wrote the
piece to ensure there is no bias.

Just an idea


On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM, graham <graham> wrote:

Mathieu O'Neil wrote:

Now, this is a complex issue. For example, I have published very few
articles in peer-reviewed journals. Pretty close to zero. I am working on
two papers right now. They are important to me, the result of several
of thinking. I know I could (perhaps should) do the noble thing and send
or both to an Internet-based journal. But deep down I feel that I would
the validation that only an established journal can give. When I have
published one or two papers like that - showing that I can do it - then I
would submit to open-access journals. I think a lot of emerging academics
think like that - or they can't afford not to think like that if they
to get a job in this super-competitive environment. I have a job, so I am
more motivated by professional pride. I am trying to be honest as
to advance the discussion. What does this mean for CSPP?

In a nutshelll: we need some incentives for people to publish with us.
Here are some random thoughts.

1- We could encourage people to submit papers that have already been
published in a closed journal - that way they would reach a new audience
get more feedback.

I don't think this is a good idea, for several reasons:
- It sets the bar so low it is self-destructive, in that people just
send us copies of things they wrote for another audience with no thought
of fitting in with our distinctive journal.
- It removes pressure on the closed journal to become more open
- It is in any case unlikely to be allowed by the contractual conditions
the academic has entered into with the closed journal

I think we should have the opposite policy: no article published in a
closed journal may be published by us. This is nothing like as radical
as it sounds, and will just reproduce existing practice (not desireable,
but practical for now): people will take one of their existing papers
which they have published in a prestigious publication and modify it. We
will accept such modified versions. It's a silly game, but it's what new
academics do: boost their number of publications by replicating their
best work with only minor variations in journals that aren't too proud
to accept such things. New journals use this phenomenon to bootstrap
themselves into existence.

To encourage this, I think our CFPs should have a general statement of
what is relevant, but be based on themed issues (I've been looking back
through the 'draft CFP' thread but can't actually see the draft CFP - so
apologies if I'm just repeating what's been said). Someone who has (for
example) just done a lot of research on 'open access' and sees we have a
 CFP for an 'open access' issue is likely to think how they could fit
their work into a peer production context; if they just see a journal
about 'peer production' it may not occur to them.

(still thinking about the review process but with nothing useful to add
yet :-(

2- For this we need good reviewers and good comments. There could be a
system where open discussion on a list leads to editorial comments being
appended to papers. Not sure. I don’t think we should rely on "anyone can
comment" to do this job - no-one may comment or comments may be mediocre.

3- There needs to be some clear guidelins for an open comment process:
-- closed editorial list / closed registration process?
-- deadlines for comments to be made?

4- It is clear that different review processes could be useful. We need
define precisely the different review processes: blind or not, open or

5- The second part of the paper cited above may have some interesting

6- In conclusion: we eventually need to get some more people on the
editorial board to help advance how the review process works. We will
some input from the people we will be approaching to work with us. So we
need to progress the rest of the "charter" so we can start approaching


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-journal [owner-journal] On
Of Stefan Merten
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:42 PM
To: journal
Cc: Stefan Merten
Subject: Review process (was: [jox] New Draft CFP)

Hi Mathieu, Athina, all!

Last week (11 days ago) Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
d) Regarding peer review

I suggested the following: for research papers, authors can request a
traditional double blind review. But following this process, research
(as all other submissions) will be collectively discussed on the list.

I think it is an interesting idea to have different processes.
However, I'm not sure about the consequences. What do others think?

For those not too deep into the traditional process: Could you please
explain what are the features of the traditional double blind review?

Last week (10 days ago) Athina Karatzogianni wrote:
About d, I think it would be prudent to think about the implications of
discussing papers openly on a list. perhaps people will be much less
critical of a work once it is openly discussed.

That was a concern mentioned before. If this point is important then
it would indeed impact the quality of the journal. This would be bad.

Who would be able to see
this discussion?

It depends. Oekonux lists are usually published on the site but we can
also have a non-archived list. On such a mailing list a discussion
would be open among the editorial board but closed to the public.

Also there can be exchange based on personal e-mail. However, I'd find
it bad for transparency if regular personal e-mail exchange would
occur unless it is between persons who are working closely together on
a particular task - such as reviewing a contribution. To prevent this
I'd rather suggest a second, non-archived mailing list.

what if one of us wanted to publish a paper, would we look
at the reviewers comments while they were formulating them?

What's wrong with this?

I think some
thought should be paid there. The tradition is to have 2-3 blind
for a paper.

See above. Can you please explain what "blind" means exactly?

I dont see and please explain to me how when ten people have a
long discussion over an email list, quality and speed improve. I think
will be quite the opposite.

IMHO this depends much on the culture of such a list. I know most of
the persons on this list personally and most for quite some time now
and I don't think that there will be unnecessary discussion.

Anyway I understood that there will be explicitly assigned reviewers
for each contribution - 2-3 sounds good to me. They are responsible to
review the particular contribution and alone for reasons of lack of
time people will probably trust the judgement of the reviewers.

Blind reviewing most of the time works in favor
of the author. Discussing between us endlessly a paper [unless it is
controversial and only after it has been blindly reviewed] I think will
waste of time and effort.

Endless is discussion is not very probable IMHO. If a contribution is
too controversial it simply will not be included. That would at least
mean an orientation in consensus in the editorial board (where
consensus means that nobody *has to* object).





Dr Athina Karatzogianni
Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships)
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
The University of Hull
United Kingdom
T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107

Check out Athina's new research:

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 66/176 L17 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00084 [Homepage] [Navigation]