[jox] Re: Multi-rating mode of evaluation / Updating papers
- From: Gabriella Coleman <biella nyu.edu>
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:53:33 -0500
Felix Stalder wrote:
Why would editorial rating allow us to publish more papers? Since this is
not a paper publication, we can publish as many as we want anyway.
Editorial rating would allow us to publish some papers, but grade them
poorly, flagging them as 'barely good enough'. We shouldn't do this. We
should publish only papers that we agree are fit for publication.
I agree with this: even if there are many problems with traditional peer
review, what I like is that once something is accepted, the journal
stands by it fully and I think this is something we should do too.
Reader ratings are different. That might useful form of feedback.
As for changes, I rather give authors a possibility to reply to the
feedback they get after publication. It's more transparent. If they want to
publish a substantially new version, they can do so as a new paper.
This is an interesting idea and also reminds me of a question I have
about how we might conduct our peer review. First, my apologies if this
has already been raised. I have been trying to catch up with the list,
have only skimmed the First Monday article on peer review and the like
but have had a tough few weeks traveling and living between two cities
and am not completely caught up.
I was also wondering if the peer reviewers will touch base with each
other about their reader reports before sending them to the
editor/author and using that conversation as an opportunity to reassess
the reports. I have always found one of the strange things about reviews
is how you can get a glowing review, a lukewarm one, and finally one
that is downright nasty. A conversation between reviewers might be a
good way to push against some of the shortcomings of an individual
reviewing social science/humanities texts where there is a great deal of
judgment along the axis of personal taste that goes into assessing the
strength of an essay.
As per updating a paper: I see no reason why there can't be a new
version, although we would also probably have to have some sort of
vetting process and I do worry about overburdening the readers/members
of the journal doing the reviews.
Again apologies if this has been raised,
Biella
****************************************************
Gabriella Coleman, Assistant Professor
Department of Media, Culture, & Communication
New York University
239 Greene St, 7th floor
NY NY 10003
212-992-7696
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_bios/view/Gabriella_Coleman
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal