Message 00189 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00189 Message: 1/77 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]

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

Hi Felix, all

First, here are the expert ratings on the journal homepage: relevance, rigour, writing, comprehesiveness, logical flow and originality (based on the Whitworth paper) to which we could add English (instead of writing?), academic (rigour?), controversy...

I think an advantage of ratings is that it allows us to publish a larger number of papers rapidly than if we publish without ratings. In this case (no ratings) we would only publish papers that are excellent in every way. This would mean a lot more time spent improving submissions, particularly - as has been raised - in terms of non-English speakers or submissions that may seem controversial. Naturally I support dialogue and cooperation between reviewers and authors but we dont want to get bogged down either. Personally I can only devote so much time to this project, in addition to work and family commitments...

This also raises the question of imposing the reviewer or editor's views in order to publish: authors may not agree with the reviewers but in traditional journals have no choice but to accept their opinion or risk non-publication (btw there was a paper written by a swiss economist a few years ago along those lines: "Academic publishing as a form of prostitution", or something).

Finally: do you then disapprove also of reader ratings?



-------- Original Message --------
From: Felix Stalder <felix>
Date: 3 Dec 2009 13:37:13
Subject: Re: [jox] Multi-rating mode of evaluation (was: Multi-rating mode of evaluation / Updating papers)
To: journal

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
> published.

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

Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
email: mathieu.oneil


Thread: joxT00189 Message: 1/77 L0 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00189 [Homepage] [Navigation]