Message 00160 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 112/176 L36 [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

Hi all,

On 2009-11-21 13:19, Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
We could perhaps simplify the rating system but this would not change
the fact that there would be a situation where some published
submissions are given a higher "expert rating" than others before
publication (as well as a "reader rating" given by registered users
after publication). The question of how people who have been given
an inferior rating by reviewers would feel about this situation has
not been addressed so far and I think it needs to be. If we do not
rate then do we go to (in theory) a lower publication rate where
only excellent contributions are published?

Two points come into my mind about expert rating:

IIRC language was part of the rating, right? This would discriminate 
against those who are not so familiar with english language.

The journal might contain strong pov articles, which is good. One aim of 
the Journal must be to support a "thinking against the mainstream". If 
peer production is really a new thing, then theorzing around this topic 
will and has to be new and unfamiliar. -- Will the expert committee work 
in this fashion? Or are unfamiliar povs are rated out, because the pov 
is not shared? (this does say anything against the persons listed which 
I don't know).

So language and pov rating could be problematic, but basically I am not 
against rating before publication.

ps. Another important issue was raised by Brian (see below) which we
had discussed previously on this list: whether authors can update
their papers after receiving reader feedback. As I thought more
about this I realised that having version numbers (ie v.4.8) might
correct the problem of not knowing which version to refer to. So I'm
starting to reexamine my position about this. I can think of several
online texts which had several versions, Wark's The Hacker
Manifesto, Raymond's Cathedral and the Bazaar, and I know that when
I wrote an article on Wikipedia for a magazine this year, the
English version is more accurate than the original French because I
got some feedback from the French - and then I got more feedback on
the English version...  I think it might be a good thing as long as
its not constant (say you could only create a revised version a
limited number of times a year?) Thoughts?...

Updating articles is a useful thing, but this should only happen by 
releasing new versions with _new permanent URLs_. Then releasing new 
versions would happen outside the ongoing review process by own 
responsibility of the auhor. Authors could get an account on the CMS to 
do that.


Start here:

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 112/176 L36 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00160 [Homepage] [Navigation]