Message 00128 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 93/176 L29 [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 : Re: [jox] Draft letter / Final CFP

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

Regarding reviewing. There is my colleague and good friend George
Michaelides <george.michaelides>, who will make an excellent
reviewer on open source communities stuff he is a research fellow at
Nottingham Trent, UK, in that respect tlkaing about trent Andreas Wittel as
well is there and could do such work.

Also, I know a great amount of people that do internet studies, that i can
draw from when the subjects area fits with the paper submitted to us. So I
think from my viewpoint, it makes sense recruit on this basis as well. What
expertise is required every time. It is being practiced in many journals
this way. (For instance I have been contacted to review without being a
permanent reviewer in different ventures). On th other hand, I can ask now,
if they want to make themselves available to be inlcuded in a scientific
committee list if this is paramount and urgent


On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil>wrote:

[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

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

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

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]

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: 93/176 L29 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00128 [Homepage] [Navigation]