Roles and scores (was: Re: Re : Re: [jox] Draft letter / Final CFP)
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:03:24 +0100
Hi Mathieu and all!
5 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
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.
Why don't you create a new page in Plone?
When you are logged in under
you find "Add new...". Just add a new page, call it "Roles" and start
I tried to come up with a few principles below
We discussed this here already. May be it makes sense to check these
but they will need to be fleshed out - what about terms, recruitment of governance board member for example?
All needed. Could be described on their own pages.
For the time being how about adding after the last name on the list for ex:
As I said: Just create a new page. With a bit of care it should be
easy to create links in the Calls page to the roles. I'm glad to help
The editor is responsible for the production of the journal.
May be "final responsible" or so. English native speakers may have
better ideas perhaps.
[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?].
I'd prefer if we could separate the description of the roles and the
way the roles (co-)operate.
As far as the role is concerned: Yes.
[after Scientific committee:]
Scientific committee members are responsible for reviewing and evaluating submissions.
Ah - so the scientific committee is some sort of gathering of
reviewers. I thought we look for reviewers on a as-needed base. If so
the scientific committee would not be very stable. Am I missing
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.
IMHO this depends on whether we have some fixed reviewers - aka
scientific committee - or only as-needed ones. For the first option I
agree with you. For the second option I wonder whether it is necessary
to have such a list at all.
This depends on the question how "[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]" 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.
But how is the average computed? Just an arithmetic average where +1
for logic +1 for originality +5 for language result in a score of
+3.5? Hardly IMHO. What we would need are weights for the values. For
W[logic] = 1.5
W[originality] = 2.0
W[language] = 0.5
This would result in
logic: +1.5 = +1 * 1.5
originality: +2.0 = +1 * 2.0
language: +2.5 = +5 * 0.5
Score: +6.0 / 4.0 = +1.5
A score of 1.5 would be much closer to what a reader expects - don't
A further development could give logged-in users a chance to have
their own set of weights for the categories.