Re: [jox] Cutting the Knot
- From: Christian Siefkes <christian siefkes.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:04:32 +0100
Hi Mathieu,
I got all your mails--no need to repost.
Mathieu ONeil wrote:
So we could have either a simplified choice of rating (outstanding,
excellent, fair) or an even simpler choice (yes, no) as in: this
paper is a grand grassroots testimony (Activist: yes) but the English
is not perfect (Native English: no) or: this paper is
academic-research oriented (Academic: yes) but it is not based on
empirical evidence (Empirical: no); or: this is a utopian fantasy
about how a peer-produced society would produce gastronomical
delights (Theoretical, Activist: yes); etc.
I like that idea.
A-For “objective” categories we could have:
-Native English
That should be called "language quality" or something. Otherwise we would
discriminate against people who aren't native speakers but write English
almost as they were.
4-decision: review discussion system
The other point to be decided concerns the process of discussion of
submissions: should these be held on a restricted mailing list (to be
clear: not the one we are using now, which is open, but one that
would be reserved to reviewers and authors) or on a protected part of
the website?
StefanMn argued for the website option:
“Well, in general I'm a big fan of mailing lists. But in this case I think a web based system would be more useful. I'd suggest to offer potential authors a place where they can propose an article in the way outlined above and reviewers can help the author to write a great article. I think a web page is more useful because it gives every stakeholder a clear structure where the subject is *one* proposed article.”
[See: lost the ref, sorry]
It's true that having one (restricted) mailing list where all submissions
are discussed could be messy (though less so if people do not
interfere with titles of emails thereby breaking threads). And it
might be easier to create files that can be used later on in the
website when publishing, I don't know. At the same time I see some
problems with setting up discrete pages for articles: a) authors and
reviewers might in fact benefit from reading discussions on other
articles; b) not sure about this, but there might be complications in
access rights – who can access what article page, etc?: c) finally
the advantage of the list is that you are kept abreast of discussion
as they go along, whether you seek the information or not –
otherwise many people (myself included) might not go to the website
very often: with a list, you have no choice, you get the message.
This is a strong advantage, in my view.
So it would be great to hear people's opinion on this second issue.
Don't have strong opinion on that, but I think i web-based system is
advantageous for automatically processing reviewers recommendations and
comments. From a mailing list, some poor editor would have to collect them
manually (I presume), which sounds quite tedious. It's true that a mailing
list may encourage more participation, but if the website is like a wiki
with a "recent changes" page, it would be easy for people to keep track of
what's going on in *all* article pages and involve themselves in all
discussions they're interested in.
7-CSPP
peer review process: main stages
Prospective authors submit a proposal to the list.
All list members vet this proposal during a reasonable period of time (1-2 weeks?): is it appropriate for the journal, are arguments or references missing?
Authors write their submission.
Authors submit to the journal.
The submission is posted by the editor to a password-protected part of the website [mailing list?] who also alerts the main journal list that he has done so.
The editor suggests two expert reviewers (volunteers welcome).
The two expert reviewers read and evaluate the submission during a reasonable period of time (3 weeks?). Reviewers are encouraged to coordinate their
review.
Reviewers post their reviews and recommendations to a password-protected part of site [mailing list?] and alert the list that they have done so.
The list discusses this during a reasonable period of time (1-2 weeks?).
During this time consensus emerges: publish, revise and resubmit (to two other reviewers, for example?), or
During this time consensus does not emerge: the decision then moves to a formal vote on the Governance Board: publish, revise and resubmit
(to two other reviewers, for example) or reject.
Submission and review process published.
Readers can comment and rate.
Authors can respond in comments section [and add links in the text to relevant comments and responses - no updating of text though].
Sounds good.
Best regards
Christian
--
|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian siefkes.net -------
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
| Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
He concluded further that Curiosity might have to be added to that list of
traits--Humor, Imagination, Eroticism, Spirituality, Rebelliousness, and
Aesthetics--that, according to his grandmother, separated full-fledged
humans from the less evolved. Of course, curiosity was not entirely lacking
among four-footed beasts, as many a dying cat would attest [...]; but such
displays of interest were feeble, even pathetic, when compared to the
inquisitive marveling of the wonderstruck, the obsessive questing of
scientists and artists, or even to the all but squealy speculations of those
who could barely wait to see what was going to happen next.
-- Tom Robbins, Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates