Message 00097 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 148/176 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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
well i think eventually, why doesnt it become totally open in the end,
people that have a problem with it can apply to other journals, why not just
do the open experiment and get on with it?
just a thought there to free our hands and proceed......

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:16 PM, graham <graham> wrote:

Stefan Merten wrote:

4 days ago graham wrote:
So the review processes seem to split into two: academic style, and
informal non-transparent 'an editor does it'. I haven't found anyone
deliberately doing a transparent version.

So how about we be the ones to do it, but as an experiment?

I fully agree but why as an experiment? Couldn't this be just our

The big downside to this is it's likely to involve double the work for
us :-(

Why do you think so?

If we accept my compromise of having peer reviewed + 'experimental' then
we have to define protocols for two methods, not one. So double the work
to set it up initially.





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: 148/176 L18 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00097 [Homepage] [Navigation]