Message 00087 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 67/176 L18 [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 Athina, all

Thanks also for comments - OK, I like the idea of being open to less-fully formed ideas: there could be a different format for submissions for example. "Working papers"? That would be a definite plus in terms of attracting submissions.  (Though I would not want to stop more developed pieces from being submitted as well. "Research papers"?). OTOH I'm not so sure about continuous publishing - i.e. a steady trickle of papers coming out which in my view would not have much of an impact as opposed to a bigger package with more to it. We already discussed this a while ago.


----- Original Message -----
From: Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k>
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Re: Peer Review [Was: RE: Review process
To: journal

[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 
feedbackon. 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> > leads...

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> > people.


-----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> papers
(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]

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: 67/176 L18 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00087 [Homepage] [Navigation]