Message 00207 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00207 Message: 1/6 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]

Re: [jox] Multi-rating mode of evaluation

[Converted from text/html]

HI Athina, Stephan, all

I dont think just because one person has their mind set on something
constitutes a sufficient reason to do it, whoever that person may be.
I think its important to keep in mind what people want. A number of
people have expressed serious reservations about rating
indiscriminately. At the same time StefanMn has argued for ratings:
but why? If I remember correctly it was mainly to allow papers that
were either a) "controversial" (ie political, radical) or b) written
by non-English speakers, to be published.

My suggestion is to compromise: normally published papers are not
rated. They are produced along the lines I suggested in my post called
"Alternative peer review system", inspired by Toni Prug's piece. But
when authors or reviewers feel that the paper are concerned by either
of the categories mentioned above, then authors can ask for and
reviewers can suggest that they are rathed in these categories. That
way papers which would either not be published or take endless
negotiation or fixing up to be published can be.

I agree with Athina that the debate needs to be wrapped up otherwise
energy will continue to drain out of the project.

The same goes with how to define who can be part of the SC. I have
made a proposal that seemed to me fair and clear a number of times,
I'm not going to repeat it again. Well some new people have been
suggested but I didnt want to contact anyone until there was



On 12/12/09, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k> wrote:
     [Converted from multipart/alternative]

     [1 text/plain]
     Hi Stefan

     I think you have your mind set on this, and so you should
     just go ahead and
     experiment with your rating system and she where it gets us.
     You want to try
     this out, so just do it!!

     Just to say though that your comment: 'Yes. And this is more
     like classical
     democracy then. But the readers can only give their opinion
     on pre-selected
     items' to me is very problematic, from the "classical
     democracy" perspective
     you are referring to. So yes, I dont mean to be difficult,
     but I do not
     think continuing this debate will have any more fruition and
     is just
     delaying the project. At the same time we are getting into a
     debate that is
     better left inside the journal's future content pages and
     not theoretically
     debated in pre-organizational terms and times

     I need some coffee desperately


     On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Stefan Merten
     <smerten> wrote:

     > Hi Brian and all!
     > I'd like to reply to this from the perspective of peer
     > Last week (7 days ago) bwhitworth wrote:
     > > Statements like "We should publish only papers that we
     agree are fit
     > > for publication" or "We should ..." in general assume
     that we
     > > control the journal. Our paper at
     > >
     > > opposes that control mentality to introduce the ideal of
     > > in academic publishing, i.e. government by the people
     for the people
     > Well, I'd say yes for the openness and transparency but no
     for those
     > who make the choice - at least for a journal like this.
     > Peer production projects are not democratic but have
     maintainers (aka
     > leaders) who are listened to by volunteers. The
     maintainers are
     > maintainers not by any alienated facility but because
     their work is
     > useful for the project at hand.
     > This is how I see it for a journal like this as well.
     People *do*
     > subscribe to such a journal *because* they trust the
     > persons to make a good choice for them because they don't
     have the
     > time / knowledge / ... for this work. Just like people
     *do* choose
     > Ubuntu *because* they trust the Ubuntu maintainers to do a
     good job.
     > > Likewise the ratings of registered readers, while
     informal, are not
     > > unexpected nor imposed. The public is always entitled to
     > > opinion. The system need only identify and ban spammes
     and trolls,
     > > as Wikipedia does. The view of the public should not be
     a secret, so
     > > people can rate what they read.
     > Yes. And this is more like classical democracy then. But
     the readers
     > can only give their opinion on pre-selected items. As I
     argued the
     > pre-selection is exactly the task of the persons
     responsible for the
     > journal.
     >                                                Grüße
     >                                                Stefan
     > ______________________________

     Dr Athina Karatzogianni
     Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
     The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships)
     Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
     The University of Hull
     United Kingdom
     HU6 7RX
     T: +[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] (0) 1482 46 5790
     F: +[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] (0) 1482 466107

     Check out Athina's work

     Check Virtual Communication Collaboration and Conflict
     (Virt3C) Conference

     [2 text/html]

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: joxT00207 Message: 1/6 L0 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00207 [Homepage] [Navigation]