Message 00103 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 75/176 L19 [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]
Hi Stefan, all

OK, I contacted one of the authors of the FM paper and he kindly sent me links to his second part as well as another relevant chapter. I just had a quick look - one thing I picked up is they advocate using rankings and ratings from readers, a la Slashdot. In his mail he also mentioned that they are seeking feedback from people on these issues. I responded that would be possible but that I was acting as part of a group and queried whether it would be OK to circulate the papers to this group (without really saying who was in it though I had originally sent a link to this list's archive). I'm still waiting for a response on that one.. I guess it would be OK for a few people to check it out. If any members of the editorial board are interested please email me privately and I will send you the links. That way we avoid compromising their work (which until it is published it still in draft form).


----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009 3:50 am
Subject: Re: [jox] Re: Peer Review
To: journal
Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten>

Hi Mathieu and all!

3 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
Hi Stefan, all

Commenting on some of Stefan's points.

"Reinventing academic publishing online. Part I: Rigor, 
relevance and
practice" by Brian Whitworth and Rob Friedman.
First Monday, Volume 14, Number 8 - 3 August 2009>> e/2609/2248

A nice article indeed (though I did not real all of it). The good
thing about our journal is that it doesn't come from the academic
tradition and thus has not necessarily to align to the tradition
outlined in the paper.

M: Well, we want to have high scientific standards for 
research papers,

Well, quality is not only possible in science - right? May be I 
am a
quality fundamentalist anywyy ;-) .

4 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
So they advocate opening up the review process (reviews would 
become> visible
so reviewers would get some recognition) while maintaining 
its blindness
(the identity of the author is secret during the review 
process). However
how this would work will only be revealed in Part II - when 
will this come
out? Next month perhaps. 

Would be interesting to read indeed.

M: I am thinking about writing to get an advance copy.

Please try. If it should be shared among this group but not published
then it could be put on the web somewhere temporarily and the link
send to this list.

In a nutshelll: we need some incentives for people to publish 
with us. 

There is already an incentive: Help the progress of mankind. Isn't
this enough?

M: Well, you are speaking from the perspective of someone 
outside the
academic world. That's fine. But the reality is that in the 
academic world
people do things for hybrid reasons - ie for the good of all, 
but also to be
survive. Because they get "paid" (in prestige) for publishing useful

I see. And I understand that we need to make compromises here...



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: 75/176 L19 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00103 [Homepage] [Navigation]