Message 00188 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 121/176 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]

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

On Wednesday, 2. December 2009, Stefan Merten wrote:

We should publish only papers that we agree are fit for publication.

But "fit for publication" is not based on a single reason. There may
be articles which we consider great in many dimensions but they lack
some certain feature. Lack of this feature normally would make them
unacceptable but if we can express this lack by a rating then the
credibility of our journal is maintained and the article is

I think multi-rating models are too complicated, and patronizing to both 
the author and the reader. I mean, if we like the paper enough to publish 
it in our journal, we should do it. Period.

Do we really need to say something like: we give this paper an 'a' in 
grammar, a 'b+' in originality, an "a-" in methodology and a 'b-' for its 
bibliography? Shouldn't the reader be able to figure it our him/herself?

If we think a paper would be great to publish, but lacks some critical 
aspects, we should ask the authors to revise it before publishing. I don't 
see this as censorship or forcing anything upon the author, but rather as a 
process of critical evaluation that leads to an improvement.



--- ----------------------------- out now:
*|Mediale Kunst/Media Arts Zurich.13 Positions.Scheidegger&Spiess2008
*|Manuel Castells and the Theory of the Network Society. Polity, 2006 
*|Open Cultures and the Nature of Networks. Ed. Futura/Revolver, 2005 

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 121/176 L37 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00188 [Homepage] [Navigation]