Message 00172 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00172 Message: 1/7 L0 [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]

Consensus? 01 - (was: Re: [jox] Reviewer for 'pschological' papers)

Hi Ricky, all

Thanks for your message. Well, as stated below, that is indeed the requirement I am suggesting for Scientific Committee membership. If no-one objects we can proceed to the next phase:

1.Could all approached SC members please forward to me or to the list asap:

a-most current institutional affiliation (if relevant),
b-webpage / website "listing their writings and thoughts about the subject in which they are claiming expert status", and
c-research interests (to be added to their site page or popup and to help decide who gets to review what).

If for whatever reason these conditions cannot be met, then we should in my view be coherent and reevaluate whether SC membership is appropriate.

2.I will approach the couple of people that have been suggested or who contacted me directly with these requirements.

Concerning the other matters under discussion (peer review and in particular the wisdom of having a rating system, or not; the updating of submissions) it is not so simple. If we abandon ratings that is a significant shift from our original plan. We could still claim to be moving from the traditional system in terms of greater openness and cooperation at the review stage and greater flexibility through comments or updates after publication. If no-one else has anything to say about these points I will go through the various perspectives and attempt to formulate a consensus position.



On 11/27/09, Ricky Herlitz <rickywings> wrote:
Hi all,

On 2009-11-22 Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
Hi Stefan


Re your questions: I don't think there are any restrictions as to who
can join the list. Regarding adding people to the Scientific Committee my
position as stated previously is that people on the SC are claiming to
speak with authority about a certain field and that this should be
verified by a link to a page establishing their "credentials" or
archiving / listing their writings and thoughts about the subject in
which they are claiming expert status. If the person you are supporting
fits either of those criteria then there is no problem from my
perspective. I did do a rapid google search on that name and came up
with nothing but since
a) there is no clear consensus about membership criteria yet and
b) I'm not sure that it's part of my "job description" to perfom such
searches to verify whether someone is qualified or not,
I did not pursue this.

You would not have found anything of interest anyway. As Stefan mentioned I'm planning to write my diploma thesis next year. So far I have only done my 'regular' studies Though that ist not supposed to say that I'm studying ordinarily unfortunately I have no substantial writings which I could display nor do I have an own page. I guess I'll have to wait until after my diploma thesis - or else let me know. Who knows, maybe you'll still be looking for a reviewer for the psychological field when I've finished my studies...

all the best,

GRATIS für alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter


****$Dr Mathieu O'Neil$Adjunct Research Fellow$Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute$College of Arts and Social Science$The Australian National University$$E-mail\3a mathieu.oneil$Tel.\3a \2861 02\29 61 25 38 00$Web\3a http\3a//$Mail\3a Coombs Building, 9$Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA$ ______________________________

Thread: joxT00172 Message: 1/7 L0 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00172 [Homepage] [Navigation]