Re: [jox] Re: Multi-rating mode of evaluation / Updating papers
- From: Christian Siefkes <christian siefkes.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:04:12 -0500
Hi Mathieu, all,
Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
I think your suggestion that reviewer reports (and possibly ratings if we go that route) could be made accessible to readers is a good one. That would also be a way of recognising the invisible work of reviewers - though should these visible reviews be signed?
I don't know, what was the planned procedure? Blind review as in "reviewers
identities are hidden" has of course the advantage that reviewers can be
honest in what they write, without having to fear professional or personal
disadvantages.
Regarding "controversial" POVs I'm not 100% sure what is being alluded to. I'm assuming that any submitted paper would be rational, and if it is, then it can be rationally evaluated, criticised and discussed, whatever the POV is (this may be an obvious point but rational POVs that are also clearly racist, sexist, etc would not be acceptable in my view).
I agree, such papers (if they are submitted) should clearly be rejected. But
what I mean with "controversial" is simply stuff like, for example, my "From
Exchange to Contributions" (peerconomy) work -- some people like the
approach very much, others think it's crap or nothing really new. Such
differing estimations will automatically lead to a mediocre rating.
Best regards
Christian
--
|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian siefkes.net -------
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
| Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
I'm the only person I know that's lost a quarter of a billion dollars in
one year.... It's very character-building.
-- Steve Jobs