Message 00122 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 84/176 L27 [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 letter / Final CFP

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Mathieu

This is fantastic, thank you, I think it will prove to be a great adventure
and I am very happy to be part of it


On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil>wrote:

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

Following is a stab at a letter to approach reviewers and an updated
version of the CFP. I went through the archive and incorporated all the
suggestions and tweaks I could find. Let me know if I forgot something.

The one topic I am a bit uncomfortable with is "peer production and
psychology" as I know nothing about it and would find it tough to evaluate
whether an article or a review was OK or not. I'm not an expert in all the
rest but I have a sense that I could at least understand the issues. So
unless someone can suggest a good academic reviewer who could help us out
here I'm quite tempted to leave that one out.

I'm proposing to call the governing body "governance board" to distinguish
it from a scientific committee of reviewers. Hope this is OK, let it be
known otherwise. I put myself in there so now we have a nice balance between
academics and programmers. :-)

Btw, the question of how to describe developers was never resolved
completely for StefanMz and Graham...

Another question is whether governance board members should also appear as
part of the scientific committee?

Concerning the peer review process, the issue of "above which expert
reviewer rating" articles should be published was not resolved so I suggest
+2. if there are any issues with that please it be known.

Finally I am pleased to announce our first official reviewer / scientific
committee member, who I approached a while ago and who immediately agreed:
Rob Ackland of the ANU. He is an economist by training, taught himself to
code, and created his own quantitative software suite to map and analyse
online networks. I've been working with him on research on environmental
social movements. He indicated to me that he's not interested in governance
issues so I haven't subscribed him to this list yet – I thought I'd wait
until we get started to ask him again. In any case his economic and
quantitative research skills will be very useful.

That’s all I can think of for now,


Dear […]

I am delighted to approach you with some exciting news. After the fourth
Oekonux conference in Manchester earlier this year, a group of peer
production and free software researchers, activists and practicioners
decided that the question of whether peer production constitutes a valid and
viable alternative to capitalism should be more widely discussed. As a
result, we decided to create an online journal to examine this question, and
I volunteered to act as editor.

This journal, Critical Studies in Peer Production, promises to be a
uniquely stimulating venture, not only because of its subject matter, but
also because of the way it will be produced. General governance is conducted
through an open decision-making process, via a mailing list where founding
members have been discussing the journal's core principles. The archives can
be consulted here:
(The Oekonux website is currently being revamped).

In addition, we were inspired by Whitworth and Friedman's suggestions
(2009a, 2009b) for the establishment of a more open system of scientific
peer reviewing. Please refer to the guidelines below for more detailed
information. We will be providing feedback  to Brian Whitworth and his
colleagues as we advance with the implementation of their suggestions.

This is why I am writing to you today: I believe that your unique expertise
in the area of […] would enable you to contribute to this project, first as
a member of our Scientific Committee and at a later date, if you wish to
contribute more, as a member of our Governance Board. I am excited by the
opportunity to gather together a group of international experts and thinkers
who together can break new ground in evaluating and analysing new forms of
cooperative production.

There is an urgent need to examine these important issues critically. I
hope that you will join us in this project. In particular, if you have any
comments or suggestions regarding the following Call for submissions, we
would be very interested to hear from you.


Mathieu O'Neil
Editor, CSPP


*Call for submissions*

Critical Studies in Peer Production (CSPP) seeks high-quality contributions
from researchers and practitioners of peer production. We understand peer
production as a mode of commons-based and oriented 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 of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. Through the analysis of the forms,
operations, and contradictions  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: the political economy
of peer production; peer production and expertise; critical theory and peer
production; peer production and exchange; peer production and social
movements; peer production as an alternative to capitalism; peer production
and capitalist cooptation; governance in peer projects; peer production and
ethics; the peer production of hardware; peer production and feminism; peer
production, industry and ecology; psychological aspects of peer production.

*Submissions guidelines*

CSPP will be published twice a year. All contributions will be peer
reviewed. Contributors are invited to follow the Harvard citation style and
to submit papers using free software such as Open Office. Once papers have
been accepted, it is the author's responsibility to format them in
accordance with our specifications.

The journal welcomes submissions based on interdisciplinary approaches
including information and computer sciences, law, geography, history,
communications, and sociology. CSPP accepts a variety of manuscripts. Please
review the descriptions below and identify the submission type best suited
to your intended submission.

Research papers
Research papers are theoretically driven, focusing on key facets of peer
production, and reporting substantial findings. Approximate length: 6000

Essays and interviews
We welcome testimonies, reflections, working papers and critical essays by
peer production researchers and practitioners. These contributions should
comprise 1000-3000 words.

We also seek reviews of relevant projects and of books analysing peer
production processes. Reviews should be 500-1000 words.

The editor is happy to discuss other possibilities with potential

*Peer Review Process*

Our approach to peer reviewing is informed by Whitworth and Friedman's
(2009a) criticism of current academic publishing as a form of competitive
economics in which "scarcity reflects demand, so high journal rejection
rates become quality indicators". This self-reinforcing system where
journals that reject more attract more results in a situation where
"avoiding faults becomes more important than new ideas. Wrongly accepting a
paper with a fault gives reputation consequences, while wrongly rejecting a
useful paper leaves no evidence".

Whitworth and Friedman (2009b) propose an alternative evaluation system:
(a) higher rating discrimination: a many-point scale, not just
(b) more submissions to be rated: rate all
(c) more people to rate: community involvement
(d) different ways of rating: formal review vs. informal use ratings.

Using the categories of relevance, rigour, writing, comprehesiveness,
logical flow and originality all submitted papers will be rated on a scale
from –1 (don't publish) to +5 (outstanding). To maintain quality, only
papers rated +2 and above by expert reviewers will be featured in the
journal. To offer a counterpoint to expert reviews, anyone who registers an
identity with the site will be able to rate articles, and comment on
articles. Statistics regarding article views and ratings, and reviewer
activity will be available on request for authors and reviewers, or sent
directly by the journal to the required institutions.


Mathieu O'Neil, Université Paris Sorbonne & Australian National University

Governance Board:
Michel Bauwens, Dhurakij Pundit University International College
George Dafermos, Delft University of Technology
Athina Karatzogianni, University of Hull
Stefan Meretz, Software developer
Stefan Merten, Software developer and founder, Oekonux
Mathieu O'Neil, Université Paris Sorbonne & Australian National University
Graham Seaman, Software developer
Christian Siefkes, Software developer and author, blog

Scientific Committee:
Rob Ackland, Australian National University

CSPP is published by Oekonux. Oekonux is a non-profit organization devoted
to the theoretical and practical advancement of peer production.


Whitworth B and R Friedman (2009a) "Reinventing academic publishing online.
Part I: Rigor, relevance and practice", First Monday, Volume 14, Number 8 -
3 August 2009.
Whitworth B and R Friedman (2009b) "Reinventing academic publishing online.
Part II: A socio–technical vision", First Monday, Volume 14, Number 9 - 7
September 2009.


[2 text/html]

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 work

Check Virtual Communication Collaboration and Conflict (Virt3C) Conference

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 84/176 L27 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00122 [Homepage] [Navigation]