Message 00173 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00172 Message: 2/7 L1 [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]

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

So, I don't currently have a full listing of my work (i.e., a vita) up
on the web at the moment. I probably will sometime before the end of
the year.

Wonder if something like this works:

a) Associate Professor, Quinnipiac University
c) social media (generally), social network analysis, hyperlink
analysis, social media (blogs, wikis) in education, participatory
learning, social movements, search engines, pornography, automated
textual analysis, agenda setting, mobile & wearable devices.



On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Mathieu O'Neil
<mathieu.oneil> wrote:
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

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$ ______________________________

// This email is
// [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [X] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
// Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur

Thread: joxT00172 Message: 2/7 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00173 [Homepage] [Navigation]