[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way papers which would either not be published or take endless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
consensus...................???
cheers
Mathieu
On 12/12/09, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k gmail.com> 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
Thanks
Athina
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Stefan Merten
<smerten oekonux.de> wrote:
> Hi Brian and all!
>
> I'd like to reply to this from the perspective of peer
production.
>
> 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
> >
> http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/
article/view/2609/2248
> > opposes that control mentality to introduce the ideal of
democracy
> > 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
responsible
> 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
its
> > 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
> ______________________________
> http://www.oekonux.org/journal
>
--
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: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/
media,_culture_and_society/staff/
karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx
Check out Athina's work
http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/
results.asp?ath=A+Karatzogianni
Check Virtual Communication Collaboration and Conflict
(Virt3C) Conference
Call
http://virt3c.wordpress.com/
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
****
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 anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal