Message 00127 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 92/176 L28 [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 : Re: [jox] Draft letter / Final CFP

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan, all

@Michel: if you're reading this, I realized after the fact that the P2P Foundation does not appear in the draft letter for potential reviewers I posted. I know StefanMn did the lion's share of the work at the Manchester conference... but still it should say something along the lines that it was a joint event, I think.

@StefanMn: Thanks for your comments and for setting up the webpage.

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

Looking good! I have a couple of suggestions. I think at this stage as we only have one page of content the title of this page should be the full name of the journal instead of "Call for submissions". 

I like the way you set up sub-categories (Submissions guidelines, Peer review process). I think there should also be a sub-category for the first two paras. I suggest "Mission statement", other suggestions welcome.

I also saw that the links all have a little globe next to them which is kind of distracting. Is there any way to remove that?

As for other suggestions and modifications about the text (apart from the roles of the participants, see below) I propose to hold off until we have a lot to modify at once - btw, are you the only one who can intervene on the page?

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.

Concerning the announcement see below. Concerning the url : will there be more pages eventually or will all the information be gathered on one page as it is now? 

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?

It's not so much about science (I agree that non-academics can have a scientific approach) as about the academic credibility of our scientific committee - having someone who has an institutional affiliation as well as some academic publications would help, I think. Holding off on that topic until we can find someone like that strikes me as sensible, if everyone agrees.

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

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  I tried to come up with a few principles below but they will need to be fleshed out - what about terms, recruitment of governance board member for example? It's an important point but it seems like overkill to go into such detail in this page. This brings me back to the earlier point about having a lot of information on the one page. At this stage its probably OK but eventually we may need to separate things a bit more. So right now we need to keep it simple. There's also a fine balance to be kept between being clear and being a bit over-bureaucratic I guess.
For the time being how about adding after the last name on the list for ex:

[after editor:]
The editor is responsible for the production of the journal. [this seems pretty obvious, may not be necessary?]

[after Governance board:]
Governance board members are responsible for overall journal administration and regulation. They strive to reach decisions by consensus. If a decision requires a formal vote, and if this vote results in perfect equality, the editor is able to cast an additional decisive vote. [I put this in to avoid deadlock situations - what do you all think?] Governance board members can also be called on to review submissions. In this case they would have to recuse themselves from a formal vote [Not sure about this - would there be a "conflict of interest" or not?].

[after Scientific committee:]
Scientific committee members are responsible for reviewing and evaluating submissions.

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.

In the way I suggest above, this is not necessary. 

Concerning the names of the Scientific committee members I would prefer to not have any yet as having just one looks a bit funny. Instead it should say something like "Currently being recruited".

Then when we have a decent number we can put them all in at once and officially announce the launch of the journal and the CFP. 

Btw, if anyone has any suggestions concerning potential reviewers, please send me their details and I will approach them.

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.

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.

Well, the way I understand it each of the categories (logic, originality etc) would be "graded" -1 to +5 and the average of this results in a score. I originally had written +3 tobe published then changed my mind. The key idea here is that I am proposing to depart from the Whitworth-Friedman model as they suggest to publish everything that is received and rated... 




[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 92/176 L28 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00127 [Homepage] [Navigation]