Message 00126 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 91/176 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

Hi Mathieu and all!

@Mathieu: Thanks!

2 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
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. 

Letter and Call are great.

I edited your version *very* slightly to make it reStructuredText.
Basically I underlined the headers and added a few empty lines. Also I
added a table of contents and a few links. The result should be
visible at

I put "DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT" at the top. Whenever it is no longer draft
this can be removed. A few more links could be added.

Though the website decision I talked of recently has not been made yet
I think it will be possible to keep the link stable. I.e.: You may
announce it already if you like.

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 agree with StefanMz here: It's an important topic. I mean it is all
about "voluntary" and "self-selection" which is of course rooted in
psychological processes.

One option would be we to postpone articles until we have a more
scientific reviewer. BTW: What qualifies a scientific reviewer?

I'm proposing to call the governing body "governance board" to distinguish it from a scientific committee of reviewers.

I'd welcome if we had a summary of the roles and their

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. :-)

May be rather academics and non-academic researchers...

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

See above.

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

This depends on the question how "+2" comes about... May be we should
not advertise absolute numbers until we have a way to calculate
numbers at all.



Thread: joxT00000 Message: 91/176 L27 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00126 [Homepage] [Navigation]