Message 00157 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 110/176 L37 [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]

[jox] Re: Multi-rating mode of evaluation / Updating papers

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,

Gabriella Coleman, Assistant Professor
Department of Media, Culture, & Communication
New York University
239 Greene St, 7th floor
NY NY 10003

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 110/176 L37 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00157 [Homepage] [Navigation]